{{NVConstitution}}{{tnr}}The '''Nevada Mining Tax Measure''' may appear on the [[BC2010#November|November 2, 2010 state ballot]] in [[Nevada]] as an {{icafull}}. The measure proposes remove the statutory deductions allowed to mining companies by current state law.<ref>[http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_13939717 ''Associated Press'',"Liberal group begins push to tax mining in Nevada," December 6, 2009]</ref>

+

{{nonv2010}}{{tnr}}The '''Nevada Mining Tax Measure''' did not appear on the [[Nevada 2010 ballot measures|November 2, 2010 state ballot]] in [[Nevada]] as an {{icafull}}. Its sponsors announced on June 14, 2010 that they had been unable to collect the 97,002 signatures they would have needed to ensure a ballot spot in November for their measure.<Ref name=no>[http://www.lvrj.com/news/signatures-lacking-on-mining-tax-effort-96360429.html ''Las Vegas Review Journal'', "Signatures lacking on mining tax effort," June 15, 2010]</ref>

−

Mining companies, according to reports, pay a higher property tax rate on the minerals they extract from the state, however, they are also allowed deductions for mining costs. Those deduction, initiative supporters argue, can severely reduce tax revenue to the state.<ref>[http://www.rgj.com/article/20100226/NEWS/2260403/1321 ''Reno Gazette-Journal'',"Lawmakers target mining," February 26, 2010]</ref>

+

The measure proposed to remove from state law some statutory tax deductions allowed to mining companies.<ref>[http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_13939717 ''Associated Press'',"Liberal group begins push to tax mining in Nevada," December 6, 2009]</ref>

−

==Supporters==

+

Mining companies, according to reports, pay a higher property tax rate on the minerals they extract from the state, however, they are also allowed deductions for mining costs. Those deduction, initiative supporters argue, can severely reduce tax revenue to the state.<ref>[http://www.rgj.com/article/20100226/NEWS/2260403/1321 ''Reno Gazette-Journal'',"Lawmakers target mining," February 26, 2010]</ref> According to the [[Nevada Constitution]] there should be a net proceeds tax on mineral of no more than 5 percent. According to the Legislative Counsel Bureau in 2008 the mining industry paid $91 million in net proceeds. According to the bureau, had the proposed initiative been implemented the industry would have paid $284.4 million.<ref name="SunApr21"/>

−

The measure is supported by an advocacy group called [http://www.planevada.org/ Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada] (PLAN). In February 2010 the [[Sunshinereview:Nevada State Education Association|Nevada State Education Association]] began running a television ad campaign that calls for the public to support the proposed measure.<ref name="MineWeb">[http://www.mineweb.co.za/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page72068?oid=99802&sn=Detail&pid=1 ''MineWeb'',"Nevada mining to pay new claims fee to help shore up state budget shortfall," March 1, 2010]</ref>

+

+

Following a [[BC2010#March|March 20, 2010]] court ruling that called for the petition language to be rewritten, supporters filed a new initiative on [[BC2010#March|March 22, 2010]].<ref>[http://www.ktvn.com/Global/story.asp?S=12189275 ''Associated Press'',"Mining tax backers file new NV initiative," March 23, 2010]</ref> However, the case is currently pending the [[Nevada Supreme Court]]. On [[BC2010#March|March 31]] the Supreme Court agreed to expedite the case. Oral arguments are scheduled to be heard [[BC2010#June|June 7]] in Las Vegas.<ref>[http://silverpinyon.com/government-a-politics/nevada-government-a-politics/400-ballot-initiative-on-mining-tax-heading-to-supreme-court ''Silver Pinyon Journal'',"Ballot initiative on mining tax heads to Supreme Court," April 1, 2010]</ref>

+

+

==Support==

+

+

The measure was supported by an advocacy group called [http://www.planevada.org/ Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada] (PLAN). In February 2010 the [[Nevada State Education Association|Nevada State Education Association]] began running a television ad campaign that calls for the public to support the proposed measure.<ref name="MineWeb">[http://www.mineweb.co.za/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page72068?oid=99802&sn=Detail&pid=1 ''MineWeb'',"Nevada mining to pay new claims fee to help shore up state budget shortfall," March 1, 2010]</ref>

Bob Fulkerson, PLAN executive director, said, "We have an enormous need in our budget. One industry is recording all-time profits, and that’s the mining industry. Yet it’s paying next to nothing to the general fund."<ref>[http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/dec/07/mining-tax-initiative/ ''Las Vegas Sun'',"Mining tax initiative," December 7, 2009]</ref>

Bob Fulkerson, PLAN executive director, said, "We have an enormous need in our budget. One industry is recording all-time profits, and that’s the mining industry. Yet it’s paying next to nothing to the general fund."<ref>[http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/dec/07/mining-tax-initiative/ ''Las Vegas Sun'',"Mining tax initiative," December 7, 2009]</ref>

Despite a decision by the [[Nevada Legislature]] to charge a new fee on mining claims, Fulkerson said the proposed amendment is still required. Fulkerson argues that the amendment will remove the industry's "sweetheart deal that's enshrined in the constitution."<ref name="MineWeb"/>

Despite a decision by the [[Nevada Legislature]] to charge a new fee on mining claims, Fulkerson said the proposed amendment is still required. Fulkerson argues that the amendment will remove the industry's "sweetheart deal that's enshrined in the constitution."<ref name="MineWeb"/>

On [[BC2010#March|March 19, 2010]] the [http://www.nevadamining.org/ Nevada Mining Association] asked a Carson City judge to block the proposed ballot initiative. Lawyers for the association argued that the initiative is unconstitutional and thus cannot appear on the ballot. The case was heard by District Judge James Wilson.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/03/19/financial/f051014D65.DTL&type=business ''Associated Press'',"Initiative with tax hike for mines before NV judge," March 19, 2010]</ref>

+

+

===Request for block denied by judge===

+

Judge Wilson Jr. denied the block requested by the [http://www.nevadamining.org/ Nevada Mining Association] but agreed that the initiative language should be reworded. The language, said the judge, should clarify that the recommended change could triple the proceeds tax on mines retroactively in 2008 from $92 million to $284 million. The change in wording requires that mining measure supporters refile the petition and start over on signature collection. However, the judge emphasized that according to the [[Judgepedia:Nevada Supreme Court|Nevada Supreme Court]] he cannot rule on the constitutionality of the measure because even if the measure does not appear to be constitutional, there may be a way to implement it in a constitutional form. Nevada Mining Association lawyers said they were "pleased" with the revisions and clarification of the initiative language.<ref>[http://www.rgj.com/article/20100320/NEWS/3200319/1321/NEWS ''Associated Press'',"Mining industry loses bid to block petition," March 20, 2010]</ref>

+

+

===Petition language changed===

+

On Monday, [[BC2010#March|March 23]] the judge ruled that the petition must include the following language:<ref>[http://www.mineweb.co.za/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page72068?oid=101308&sn=Detail&pid=1 ''Mineweb'',"Nevada mining tax hike drive continues after judge changes petition language," March 23, 2010]</ref>

+

+

<blockquote>The Nevada Constitution provides for a tax on mining proceeds. Since 1865 Nevada has taxed net proceeds of minerals extracted in the state at a rate of not more than five percent. ‘Minerals' include oil, gas and other hydrocarbons, but does not include sand, gravel or water, except hot water or steam in an operation extracting geothermal resources.</blockquote>

+

+

<blockquote>This initiative amends the Constitution in two ways: 1) Taxing gross proceeds, rather than net proceeds, of minerals extracted in this state; and 2) at a rate of not less than five percent, rather than not more than five percent. The tax would apply without regard to the costs of extracting the mineral, including digging, removing, processing, transporting, labor, and other costs.</blockquote>

+

+

<blockquote>The impact of the tax increase cannot be precisely determined. The legislature's fiscal analysis indicates in 2008 the present tax generated $$91.8 million for state and local governments; if this initiative provision were in effect in 2008, the tax would have generated $284.4 million-a tax/revenue increase of more than 300%.</blockquote>

+

+

<blockquote>To become effective this change must be approved in two general elections. The earliest the additional revenue would be available would be in fiscal year 2013-2014.</blockquote>

+

+

===Case heard by Supreme Court===

+

Following the March decision by Carson City judge the Nevada Mining Association filed an appeal with the [[Nevada Supreme Court]]. The association maintains that the initiative petition violates the single subject rule by including two subjects: changing the [[Nevada Constitution]] and changing the tax rate. On [[BC2010#March|March 31]] the Supreme Court agreed to expedite the case.<ref>[http://www.rgj.com/article/20100331/NEWS07/100331015/-1/CARSON/Nevada-Supreme-Court-expedites-mining-tax-appeal ''Associated Press'',"Nevada Supreme Court expedites mining tax appeal," March 31, 2010]</ref><ref>[http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/mar/31/supreme-court-speed-mining-association-appeal/ ''Las Vegas Sun'',"Supreme Court to speed up mining association appeal," March 31, 2010]</ref><ref>[http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/may/13/mining-tax-proponents-ask-court-allow-voters-decid/ ''Las Vegas Sun'',"Mining tax proponents ask court to let voters decide issue," May 13, 2010]</ref>

+

+

The Nevada Supreme Court heard oral arguments on [[BC2010#June|June 7]] in Las Vegas.<ref>[http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/jun/07/nevada-court-hearing-mine-tax-initiative-arguments/ ''Associated Press'',"Nevada court hearing mine tax initiative arguments," June 7, 2010]</ref> According to reports the Nevada Mining Association argued that the proposed initiative should be kept off the ballot because if approved by voters it would undermine the [[Nevada Legislature|state legislature]]. "The people can't command the government to enact a law," said Attorney Bradley Scott Schrager, who represents the Nevada Mining Association. However, Attorney Don Springmeyer, who represents initiative supporters, said the ballot question does not require lawmakers to raise mining taxes but instead gives them approval to proceed in that direction.<ref>[http://www.lvrj.com/news/mining-attorney-asks-justices-to-keep-tax-question-off-ballot-95823774.html ''Las Vegas Review-Journal'',"Mining attorney asks justices to keep tax question off ballot," June 7, 2010]</ref><ref>[http://www.canadianbusiness.com/markets/market_news/article.jsp?content=D9G737DG1 ''Associated Press'',"Lawyer to Nevada high court: Mining tax petition would 'commandeer' legislative process," June 8, 2010]</ref>

* On April 5-7, 2010 [http://www.mason-dixon.com/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=About.Home Mason-Dixon Polling & Research] conducted a poll, on behalf of the ''Las Vegas Review-Journal,'' which found that 40% of polled registered voters were in favor of the proposed amendment, while 37% were opposed and 23% were undecided. The margin of error for the poll was +/- 4%.<ref>[http://www.lvrj.com/news/poll--mining-tax-increase-supported-90595749.html ''Las Vegas Review Journal'',"Poll: Mining tax increase supported," April 12, 2010]</ref><ref>[http://www.mineweb.co.za/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page72068?oid=102630&sn=Detail&pid=102055 ''Mineweb'',"Poll shows tight race so far in Nevada mining taxation ballot initiative," April 13, 2010]</ref><ref>[http://www.rgj.com/article/20100412/NEWS07/100412010/-1/CARSON/Nevadans-split-in-poll-on-switch-in-mining-taxes ''Associated Press'',"Nevadans split in poll on switch in mining taxes," April 12, 2010]</ref>

+

+

{{NVMiningTaxPoll}}

==Path to the ballot==

==Path to the ballot==

−

In order to qualify the measure for the [[Nevada 2010 ballot measures|November 2010 ballot]] supporters are required to collect a minimum of 97,002 [[Nevada signature requirements|valid signatures]].

+

+

:: ''See also: [[Nevada signature requirements]]''

+

+

In order to qualify the measure for the [[Nevada 2010 ballot measures|November 2, 2010 ballot]] supporters would have had to collect a minimum of 97,002 [[Nevada signature requirements|valid signatures]] by [[Petition drive deadlines, 2010|June 15, 2010]].<ref>[http://nvsos.gov/index.aspx?page=120 ''Nevada Secretary of State'',"Important 2010 Initiative Dates," retrieved June 1, 2010]</ref>

+

+

Opponents of the petition threw up various legal and procedural obstacles. In March 2010, District Judge James Wilson ruled in favor of initiative opponents, saying that the petition language was unclear, and that the petition would have to be re-written. At that time, supporters of the initiative had already collected 12,000 signatures. The judge's order meant that they had to discard those signatures and start the collection process over from scratch.<ref name=no/>

+

+

According to reports a month later, in April 2010, supporters had by then collected approximately 10,000 new signatures.<ref name="SunApr21">[http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/apr/21/mining-association-initiative-raise-state-tax-indu/ ''Las Vegas Sun'',"Mining Association: Initiative to raise state tax ‘confusing, misleading’," April 21, 2010]</ref>

+

+

When the June 15 petition drive deadline had arrived, supporters said they had been able to collect about 66,000 signatures, or about 67% of the minimum requirement.<ref name=no/>

==See also==

==See also==

+

* [[Nevada 2010 ballot measures]]

* [[Nevada 2010 ballot measures]]

* [[2010 ballot measures]]

* [[2010 ballot measures]]

+

+

===Articles===

+

+

* [[Nevada petition drive deadline only a week away]]

+

* [[Nevada mining tax measure to be heard by Supreme Court this summer]]

The measure proposed to remove from state law some statutory tax deductions allowed to mining companies.[2]

Mining companies, according to reports, pay a higher property tax rate on the minerals they extract from the state, however, they are also allowed deductions for mining costs. Those deduction, initiative supporters argue, can severely reduce tax revenue to the state.[3] According to the Nevada Constitution there should be a net proceeds tax on mineral of no more than 5 percent. According to the Legislative Counsel Bureau in 2008 the mining industry paid $91 million in net proceeds. According to the bureau, had the proposed initiative been implemented the industry would have paid $284.4 million.[4]

Bob Fulkerson, PLAN executive director, said, "We have an enormous need in our budget. One industry is recording all-time profits, and that’s the mining industry. Yet it’s paying next to nothing to the general fund."[8]

Despite a decision by the Nevada Legislature to charge a new fee on mining claims, Fulkerson said the proposed amendment is still required. Fulkerson argues that the amendment will remove the industry's "sweetheart deal that's enshrined in the constitution."[7]

Opposition

Mining lobbyist Jim Wadhams said, according to reports, the measure "is designed to shut mining down."[7]

Legal challenge

On March 19, 2010 the Nevada Mining Association asked a Carson City judge to block the proposed ballot initiative. Lawyers for the association argued that the initiative is unconstitutional and thus cannot appear on the ballot. The case was heard by District Judge James Wilson.[9]

Request for block denied by judge

Judge Wilson Jr. denied the block requested by the Nevada Mining Association but agreed that the initiative language should be reworded. The language, said the judge, should clarify that the recommended change could triple the proceeds tax on mines retroactively in 2008 from $92 million to $284 million. The change in wording requires that mining measure supporters refile the petition and start over on signature collection. However, the judge emphasized that according to the Nevada Supreme Court he cannot rule on the constitutionality of the measure because even if the measure does not appear to be constitutional, there may be a way to implement it in a constitutional form. Nevada Mining Association lawyers said they were "pleased" with the revisions and clarification of the initiative language.[10]

Petition language changed

On Monday, March 23 the judge ruled that the petition must include the following language:[11]

The Nevada Constitution provides for a tax on mining proceeds. Since 1865 Nevada has taxed net proceeds of minerals extracted in the state at a rate of not more than five percent. ‘Minerals' include oil, gas and other hydrocarbons, but does not include sand, gravel or water, except hot water or steam in an operation extracting geothermal resources.

This initiative amends the Constitution in two ways: 1) Taxing gross proceeds, rather than net proceeds, of minerals extracted in this state; and 2) at a rate of not less than five percent, rather than not more than five percent. The tax would apply without regard to the costs of extracting the mineral, including digging, removing, processing, transporting, labor, and other costs.

The impact of the tax increase cannot be precisely determined. The legislature's fiscal analysis indicates in 2008 the present tax generated $$91.8 million for state and local governments; if this initiative provision were in effect in 2008, the tax would have generated $284.4 million-a tax/revenue increase of more than 300%.

To become effective this change must be approved in two general elections. The earliest the additional revenue would be available would be in fiscal year 2013-2014.

Case heard by Supreme Court

Following the March decision by Carson City judge the Nevada Mining Association filed an appeal with the Nevada Supreme Court. The association maintains that the initiative petition violates the single subject rule by including two subjects: changing the Nevada Constitution and changing the tax rate. On March 31 the Supreme Court agreed to expedite the case.[12][13][14]

The Nevada Supreme Court heard oral arguments on June 7 in Las Vegas.[15] According to reports the Nevada Mining Association argued that the proposed initiative should be kept off the ballot because if approved by voters it would undermine the state legislature. "The people can't command the government to enact a law," said Attorney Bradley Scott Schrager, who represents the Nevada Mining Association. However, Attorney Don Springmeyer, who represents initiative supporters, said the ballot question does not require lawmakers to raise mining taxes but instead gives them approval to proceed in that direction.[16][17]

Polls

Position is ahead and at or over 50% Position is ahead or tied, but under 50%

On April 5-7, 2010 Mason-Dixon Polling & Research conducted a poll, on behalf of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, which found that 40% of polled registered voters were in favor of the proposed amendment, while 37% were opposed and 23% were undecided. The margin of error for the poll was +/- 4%.[18][19][20]

Date of Poll

Pollster

In favor

Opposed

Undecided

April 5-7, 2010

Mason-Dixon Polling & Research

40%

37%

23%

Path to the ballot

Opponents of the petition threw up various legal and procedural obstacles. In March 2010, District Judge James Wilson ruled in favor of initiative opponents, saying that the petition language was unclear, and that the petition would have to be re-written. At that time, supporters of the initiative had already collected 12,000 signatures. The judge's order meant that they had to discard those signatures and start the collection process over from scratch.[1]

According to reports a month later, in April 2010, supporters had by then collected approximately 10,000 new signatures.[4]

When the June 15 petition drive deadline had arrived, supporters said they had been able to collect about 66,000 signatures, or about 67% of the minimum requirement.[1]